Other peoples money

[dude1394]

Who'd a thunk it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...prod=permalink

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

Article Tools Sponsored By
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 20, 2008

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof
On the Ground

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Columnist Page »

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

[alexamenos]

We've been down this subject before -- I think it's particularly telling (as Kristoff points out) that "conservatives" are also more inclined to give time and blood.

Anybody that has been heavily involved in any kind of institution can tell you that sooner or later people heavily involved with an institution come to care as much about the institution as it's purpose. Liberals, it seems to me, care more about government than the people government is supposed to help.

and...

what's so "compassionate" about wanting someone else to give their money to somebody else? I'd like for you to buy my family christmas presents this year....does that make me a compassionate guy?

[wmbwinn]

The Heaviest Element Known to Science
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

We've been down this subject before -- I think it's particularly telling (as Kristoff points out) that "conservatives" are also more inclined to give time and blood.

Anybody that has been heavily involved in any kind of institution can tell you that sooner or later people heavily involved with an institution come to care as much about the institution as it's purpose. Liberals, it seems to me, care more about government than the people government is supposed to help.

and...

what's so "compassionate" about wanting someone else to give their money to somebody else? I'd like for you to buy my family christmas presents this year....does that make me a compassionate guy?

yes, we discussed the issue of Biden not contributing anything to charity. We found that McCain and Palin had.

Generates a lot of animosity.

Basically, liberals think that we should tax rich people and let the government redistribute the money to help people out. Charity is the job of Obama and company.

Conservatives go to church and think that service should be done personally and without acclaim or notice. Conservatives think service is a moral obligation and is the job of good people.

[92bDad]

Perhaps we could see true colors, if we created some type of code, that people should give with an equal or greater amount as they are taxed.

Let's see how quickly the liberals would be pushing for lower taxes then???

[Mavdog]

some tidbits from the article..

"there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays." interesting that the group who suffers discrimination the most is the one who donates most.

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." ahh, so if the $ that conservatives give to churches- which from the looks of things is not money that is given to the less fortunate but rather more often than not money given to construct bigger and bigger edifices- the whole basis of the assertion of the article is negated.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

some tidbits from the article..

"there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays." interesting that the group who suffers discrimination the most is the one who donates most.

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." ahh, so if the $ that conservatives give to churches- which from the looks of things is not money that is given to the less fortunate but rather more often than not money given to construct bigger and bigger edifices- the whole basis of the assertion of the article is negated.

Hmm... ofcourse giving to chruches is no real charity...

[dude1394]

It's not how much you give to charity...it's the "correctness" of the charity...dontcha' know.

[chumdawg]

If anyone believes that "conservatives" are more charitable by nature than "liberals" are, they have checked their sense of reason at the door.

It's one of the things that defines the separation between the two, after all.

[dude1394]

Survey Says..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Survey Says..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html
"Brooks, a registered independent"

I'll call that pure bs. brooks is a "visiting scholar" at the american enterprise institute, which is anythong BUT independent.

again, the true falacy in the survey by brooks is calling $ given to churches "charity". take that out and it's a different outcome than what is being put forth.

by including church donations in the computation, brooks pretty much slants the survey in the direction that he wanted.

[chumdawg]

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

If we are trying to draw broad conclusions about the two groups, the average may not give us the best analysis. Were there people at the top end--like, say, a Bill Gates--who skewed the average? At the very least, it would be helpful to see the mean. And at best, we would like to know the mean of the percentage income given. There are a number of moving parts here.

Still and all, it's a pointless exercise. Ask yourself what type of person is likely to pass a beggar and give a dollar and what type of person is likely to pass that beggar and say, "Get a job."

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If we are trying to draw broad conclusions about the two groups, the average may not give us the best analysis. Were there people at the top end--like, say, a Bill Gates--who skewed the average? At the very least, it would be helpful to see the mean. And at best, we would like to know the mean of the percentage income given. There are a number of moving parts here.

Still and all, it's a pointless exercise. Ask yourself what type of person is likely to pass a beggar and give a dollar and what type of person is likely to pass that beggar and say, "Get a job."

What does the reaction to a beggar have to do with someone's willingness to give to a charity? There are plenty of charities for someone to give to even if their opinion of beggars and homeless is that they "should get a job".

And let's please leave the quotes off of the word charity when we refer to people giving to churches. Churches are charities. I'm sure some churches dont' seem like it, but I'm sure all secular charities are not created equal either. The money I give to my church does a lot of people a lot of good.

[dude1394]

Don't be such a "church" hata'.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

What does the reaction to a beggar have to do with someone's willingness to give to a charity? There are plenty of charities for someone to give to even if their opinion of beggars and homeless is that they "should get a job".

I don't get where you are coming from. What are the charities to give to that are not only different from, but in the context of our discussion more deserving than, street people?

And let's please leave the quotes off of the word charity when we refer to people giving to churches. Churches are charities. I'm sure some churches dont' seem like it, but I'm sure all secular charities are not created equal either. The money I give to my church does a lot of people a lot of good.

"Churches are charities" is a bigger claim than I think you want to make.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't get where you are coming from. What are the charities to give to that are not only different from, but in the context of our discussion more deserving than, street people?

If someone is in a healthy condition and able to work, why should he not get a job? It's a whole other story when we're talking about veterans who lost their legs or other disabled people.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Arne

If someone is in a healthy condition and able to work, why should he not get a job? It's a whole other story when we're talking about veterans who lost their legs or other disabled people.

I agree with you, why should he not get a job. In fact, I think there should be good jobs for every good American. He should be able to pick and choose, for that matter.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, though. Is there full employment in Germany?

[wmbwinn]

no one posted any links or documents to support the statement that excluding churches that libs give more charity than conservs.

But... let examine the arguement. Basically, several of you are saying that liberals give more to charity if and only if we eliminate gifts to churches. So... does that mean liberals don't go to church? Or does that mean that liberals that do go to church don't contribute/donate to the church? Either way, you are forming a conclusion that the Dem party has been trying to fight.

It was obvious that Obama and Hillary and the National Dem Convention very much wanted the nation to see that Liberals/Dems go to church too and that Conservs/Reps don't have a monopoly on the Church issue.

Now, it became funny to me to watch Obama dance between wanting to appear Christian and wanting to distance himself from the Reverend and Church that converted him from Islam towards Christianity.

Anyway, I find it interesting to see some of you arguing that Church is shit and that Dems don't support churches. I hope you are successful in getting your message out. A lot of Church going persons voted for Obama.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't get where you are coming from. What are the charities to give to that are not only different from, but in the context of our discussion more deserving than, street people?

"Churches are charities" is a bigger claim than I think you want to make.

I have to agree with jthig here. Churches do a lot of charitable work, therefore can be considered a charity.

From dictionary.com

char⋅i⋅ty

1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
6. leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.
7. Christian love; agape.

How many churches do you know of who do NOT participate in the kinds of activities listed above?

If I pay tithes and offerings to my church, and my church uses that money to aid those in need, how is that not charitable? How is my contribution anything other than charity?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I have to agree with jthig here. Churches do a lot of charitable work, therefore can be considered a charity.

Roll off some citations here, whether it's your church or another you know of.

I am not under the impression that churches are in the business of taking money from parishioners and redistributing it to outsiders.

[Mavdog]

first, as it relates to the homeless and the phrase "get a job", the vast majority of homeless suffer fron mental illness, not a case of laziness. their capablility to get and hold a job is pretty much nonexistent.

second, as for the role of churches in determining the level of donations in the study....read the article. when the contributions to churches are removed it's about even between liberals and conservatives.

last, the discussion of if a church is a charity. a charity is an organization whose reason for existence is directing funds and effort toward helping affected people. imo churches do not come close to reaching this definition, as their first priority is their congregants, and many churches are nowhere close to providing 1/3 of their budgets towards affected people, which is a common definition of a well run charity.

the fact that some churches may provide charitable endeavors doesn't itself qualify them as a charitable organization. the firm that I work at gives support to 3 different organizations helping ill kids and women's shelters thru either money or labor....thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. does that mean the firm is a charity? nowhere close.

not to even mention how some churches (benny hinn, kenneth copeland) shouldn't be allowed to even be tax exempt, they're nothing but religious businesses...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, as it relates to the homeless and the phrase "get a job", the vast majority of homeless suffer fron mental illness, not a case of laziness. their capablility to get and hold a job is pretty much nonexistent.

second, as for the role of churches in determining the level of donations in the study....read the article. when the contributions to churches are removed it's about even between liberals and conservatives.

last, the discussion of if a church is a charity. a charity is an organization whose reason for existence is directing funds and effort toward helping affected people. imo churches do not come close to reaching this definition, as their first priority is their congregants, and many churches are nowhere close to providing 1/3 of their budgets towards affected people, which is a common definition of a well run charity.

the fact that some churches may provide charitable endeavors doesn't itself qualify them as a charitable organization. the firm that I work at gives support to 3 different organizations helping ill kids and women's shelters thru either money or labor....thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. does that mean the firm is a charity? nowhere close.

not to even mention how some churches (benny hinn, kenneth copeland) shouldn't be allowed to even be tax exempt, they're nothing but religious businesses...

The IRS code defines charities. You can look there for a definition if you wish. Many churches split off their charitable branches/efforts with different names to meet the legal code issues. Many churches do have some aspects of their functionality taxed. You are over simplifying the issue.

The reason the Catholic Church created the entity "Catholic Charities" is probably exactly for the issue of dealing with the IRS code.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The IRS code defines charities. You can look there for a definition if you wish. Many churches split off their charitable branches/efforts with different names to meet the legal code issues. Many churches do have some aspects of their functionality taxed. You are over simplifying the issue.

The reason the Catholic Church created the entity "Catholic Charities" is probably exactly for the issue of dealing with the IRS code.

are you referring to 501(c)? not relative.

churches don't need to register with the irs, they are exempt already.

your presumption on catholic charties is pretty flimsy to say the least.

churches only pay tax on an activity totally removed from their normal conduct, for instance if they own income producing property leased by an unrelatted for profit entity.

very, very few churches pay any taxes, be that income or property.

[chumdawg]

Take a drive through town and notice the biggest and shiniest buildings.

A word of advice that stuck with me is this: Vegas didn't get built because some grandma knew a way to beat the slot machines.

Churches are doing okay. The homeless, not so much.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Take a drive through town and notice the biggest and shiniest buildings.

A word of advice that stuck with me is this: Vegas didn't get built because some grandma knew a way to beat the slot machines.

Churches are doing okay. The homeless, not so much.

dance and dodge. dance and dodge. no wonder you like Obama.

Fact is that the homeless would be a lot worse off without the tireless efforts of faith based groups like the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities and hundreds (maybe thousands) of others.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

dance and dodge. dance and dodge. no wonder you like Obama.

Fact is that the homeless would be a lot worse off without the tireless efforts of faith based groups like the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities and hundreds (maybe thousands) of others.

I have volunteered at two homeless shelters in Dallas (does that count in the survey as giving to charity?) and I can tell you that neither the Salvation Army nor the Catholic Charities were there. In fact, I can tell you that no "faith based" organizations of any kind were there. These were "halfway houses," where guys were trying to make their way back into society after serving terms as felons in the state penitentiary.

No Salvation Army, no Jesus Church...just liberals like me.

Have you spent time with people like that? We should send our data to that jackass who wrote the story, so that he can be better informed.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I have volunteered at two homeless shelters in Dallas (does that count in the survey as giving to charity?) and I can tell you that neither the Salvation Army nor the Catholic Charities were there. In fact, I can tell you that no "faith based" organizations of any kind were there. These were "halfway houses," where guys were trying to make their way back into society after serving terms as felons in the state penitentiary.

No Salvation Army, no Jesus Church...just liberals like me.

Have you spent time with people like that? We should send our data to that jackass who wrote the story, so that he can be better informed.

Yes. I have spent a lot of time in places like that. I was a minister before I went to college.

Yes, there are non church associated government run half way houses. There are also 'for profit' structures in that business.

But, there are also Salvation Army and Catholics Charity half way homes. You just volunteered at one that was not church associated.

Doesn't change any of the conversation as to its facts regarding the value of church based charity efforts and the definition of a charitable entity.

[jefelump]

Information on the Salvation Army.....

Salvation

The Salvation Army was founded as an evangelical organization dedicated to bringing people into a meaningful relationship with God through Christ. Its doctrinal basis is that of the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition. It is composed of persons who are united by the love of God and man, and who share the common purpose of bringing others to Jesus Christ. The word salvation indicates the overall purpose of the organization—to motivate all people to embrace the salvation provided to them in Christ.

The word army indicates that the organization is a fighting force, constantly at war with the powers of evil. Battles are effectively waged through an integrated ministry that gives attention to both body and spirit. It is a total ministry for the total person. The Army cooperates with churches of all denominations to meet the needs of the community. Those who have drifted away from God and those estranged from their own religious affiliations are often attracted to The Salvation Army.They are first urged to seek Christ for pardon and deliverance from sin. Then they are encouraged to return to active membership in their

Active Service

Christianity is synonymous with service for the Salvationist. The distinguishing feature in the religious life of The Salvation Army is active participation by its members.

Corps community centers are the focus of the spiritual work and are organized in a military manner, using military terms throughout. The corps building is sometimes known as the “citadel.” The pastor serves as an “officer.” Members are “soldiers.” This sphere of activity is known as the “field.” Instead of joining The Salvation Army, members are “enrolled” after signing the “Articles of War.” When officers and soldiers die, they are “Promoted to Glory.”

Soldiers are disciples of Jesus Christ and are expected to accept responsibility in the work of The Salvation Army. Whenever possible, they participate in Army meetings. Soldiers may teach Sunday-school classes, play musical instruments, join the band, assist the corps officer in visitation among the poor and sick, or aid in general social work. Soldiers abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages, drugs and tobacco.

[chumdawg]

The corps building is sometimes known as the “citadel.” The pastor serves as an “officer.” Members are “soldiers.” This sphere of activity is known as the “field.” Instead of joining The Salvation Army, members are “enrolled” after signing the “Articles of War.” When officers and soldiers die, they are “Promoted to Glory.”

Soldiers are disciples of Jesus Christ and are expected to accept responsibility in the work of The Salvation Army. Whenever possible, they participate in Army meetings. Soldiers may teach Sunday-school classes, play musical instruments, join the band, assist the corps officer in visitation among the poor and sick, or aid in general social work. Soldiers abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages, drugs and tobacco.

You may call that religion, but I call it a cult.

And again, my thanks to you all. They will never see even another nickel from me.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You may call that religion, but I call it a cult.

And again, my thanks to you all. They will never see even another nickel from me.

cult is a fun word. The evangelicals call catholics a cult. A cult is basically what you believe is not true.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You may call that religion, but I call it a cult.

And again, my thanks to you all. They will never see even another nickel from me.

Oh? You gave to the Salvation Army recently, not knowing they were a church? And now you won't ever do it again. Why the animosity and hatred against religion?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Oh? You gave to the Salvation Army recently, not knowing they were a church? And now you won't ever do it again. Why the animosity and hatred against religion?

Being the kind of guy who doesn't like to get involved in other people's affairs, I have neither animosity nor hatred for another man's religion. I do not like, however, to be confronted by it. What's yours is yours and should remain yours. And what's mine should be mine. I should be able to walk into Wal-Mart without considering the idea of whether your religion is the one that will deliver us all to paradise.

So, no more donations from me to the Salvation Army. Glad I learned what I learned tonight.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Being the kind of guy who doesn't like to get involved in other people's affairs, I have neither animosity nor hatred for another man's religion. I do not like, however, to be confronted by it. What's yours is yours and should remain yours. And what's mine should be mine. I should be able to walk into Wal-Mart without considering the idea of whether your religion is the one that will deliver us all to paradise.

So, no more donations from me to the Salvation Army. Glad I learned what I learned tonight.

I assume when you say "your religion" that you are speaking in generalities. I am not a member of the Salvation Army, in case you were thinking I was trying to push my religion on you.

"What's yours is yours and should remain yours. And what's mine should be mine." I know you're talking about religion with that line, so I'll leave it at that, instead of relating that back to taxes and charity.

But going back to the Bell Ringers.... Why does it have to be about whether or not their religion will deliver us all to paradise? Why can't it just be about helping others? In the end, does the recipient of charity really care if that assistance came from a religious or a non-religious charity? I don't think so.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

But going back to the Bell Ringers.... Why does it have to be about whether or not their religion will deliver us all to paradise? Why can't it just be about helping others? In the end, does the recipient of charity really care if that assistance came from a religious or a non-religious charity? I don't think so.

I highly doubt that the great majority of the change dropped in those buckets makes it to people in need. If there's one thing I know, it's that the "religion" industry is awfully easy to steal from.

I bet that for every quarter I toss in the bucket, at least ten cents lines somebody's pocket. Hell, it's probably twenty cents. Ten to the guy holding the bucket (he's not working for free) and ten to the higher-ups.

There's something about it that just feels dirty. And when it feels dirty, it's probably for good reason.

If you are feeling charitable, give yourself. That way you can be sure that your money isn't siphoned off by 90% before it gets to those who need it.

[jthig32]

Unless there is a special designation that I'm not aware of, offerings to a church are eligible for tax write offs because they are donations to an organized charity, just like any other charitable donations. So clearly the IRS does define churches as charities.

And the notion that churches are not a huge support network for large scale charity movements is ridiculous. Be it supporting missions trips that build schools, supporting orphanages, supporting (or completely running) soup kitchens, etc etc. As I said before, not all churches do the right things with their money. But on whole, the worldwide church is responsbile for a huge portion of charity work around the world.

[Mavdog]

no, offerrings to a church are tax deductible but are classified seperately than donations to a qualified charity.

the irs requires charities to register and meet their specifications. there is no such requirement for churches.

again, the irs views charities and churches very differently.

[chumdawg]

It would take a lot of nerve to deduct church donations from your taxes.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It would take a lot of nerve to deduct church donations from your taxes.

It takes no nerve at all. It's perfectly legal, and widely done (and accepted).

Wikipedia

Under IRS's IRC Section 170, individuals giving to 501(c)(3) organizations that are either public charities, private operating foundations, and certain private foundations may deduct contributions representing up to 50% of the donor's adjusted gross income if the individual itemizes on his/her tax returns. Individuals giving to 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations may generally deduct contributions representing up to 30% of their adjusted gross income. Corporations may deduct all contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations (regardless of foundation status) up to an amount normally equal to 10% of their taxable income.

501(c)(3) status for charities and the related section 170 deduction for donors are important to many charitable groups. Some individuals and groups (and virtually all foundations) will not give to a charity if it does not have 501(c)(3) status (as no tax deduction would be allowed). Therefore, loss of this status can be harmful (if not fatal) to a charity's existence.

Obtaining status

Some organizations automatically acquire 501(c)(3) status upon filing of proper organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation as a church), at least until annual income exceeds a statutory threshold. Others will not receive 501(c)(3) status until they file an application and supporting documentation to the IRS and have a certification letter issued. The 501(c)3 application must be accompanied by a $300 application fee if annual income for 1st 4 years is $10,000 or less ($750 if annual income is more than that). [6]The IRS will examine the application and may require further financial and organization information prior to granting the 501(c)(3) status. To cover donations made before the letter is issued, the regulations require prompt filing of the application after organization, or after an existing organization satisfies the criteria for 501(c)(3), or after exceeding the income threshold.

Even though Mavdog claimed 501c was irrelevant earlier, the above is from the tax code. I took it from Wikipedia, only because it was easier to find.

The bolded indicates contributions to 501c3's is tax deductible, and it also says churches are 501c3's. So the IRS grants churches the same standing as other charities. I wonder why that is....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

It takes no nerve at all. It's perfectly legal, and widely done (and accepted).

Wikipedia


Even though Mavdog claimed 501c was irrelevant earlier, the above is from the tax code. I took it from Wikipedia, only because it was easier to find.

The bolded indicates contributions to 501c3's is tax deductible, and it also says churches are 501c3's. So the IRS grants churches the same standing as other charities. I wonder why that is....

the REGISTRATION requirements of 501(3)(c) is not applicable/relevant to churches, and IS applicable/relevant to charities.

there are a wide variety of non-profit orgs that fall under the 501(3)(c) regs, including literary groups, museums, etc. these groups must qualify under the registration rules, and the irs determines if they meet the standards. just like charities.

according to your logic, these groups must also be charities....and they are not.

newsflash: just because an org is governed by 501(3)(c) tax regs does not make it a charity. it just make sit tax exempt.

[chumdawg]

I'm just saying that it takes a hard conscience to take that deduction. Poor people don't itemize, so they don't get the financial benefit. And the good that the government does is lessened.

But as they say, chacun a son gout.